twilson@infratilairports.com
Cc: brazierj@parliament.uk;
ladymans@parliament.uk;
ellmanl@parliament.uk
Date: Monday, 22 March, 2010, 1:06
Hi Matt
I'm not sure if you're still in the UK but I've not
heard back on these points?
There's a front cover newspaper article on the dangers
of air pollution and links to asthma, cancer etc here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/britain-a-breath-of-foul-air-1924790.html
Clearly aviation directors in a large aviation company
could hardly be unaware of the cancer risk etc and requirement for monitoring.
Tom, congratulations on your new role and welcome to
Manston.
I understand that the airport is built on the -
polluted - drinking water supply and there are various repeated breaches of the S106 agreement - can you clarify why planes are repeatedly
landing outside of the specified control times?
Also why planes are repeatedly overflying the towns in
breach of the S106: two flights at least occurred today – including taking off over the towns.
I'm also unclear why Infratil unilaterally changed the S106 agreement to allow "loop" training flights?
It seems as though Infratil have repeatedly and
deliberately breached the various control mechanisms to safeguard the local population and environment.
I'm aware of no political or public decision or vote to allow these repeated breaches.
How will Infratil provide cleanup and compensation?
There is a free health service - funded by the taxpayer - but extra damage from pollution discharge would be an extra burden on it.
Extra mortuaries, body bags, nurse and doctor
assistance would detract from other medical services.
And is a police investigation required on some of
these measures: clearly an aviation company can't fly when and where it likes in the EU - or NZ - or repeatedly breach the safeguards.
That could be corporate manslaughter.
Kindest regards
Tim
> > --- On Fri, 12/2/10, tim garbutt
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: tim garbutt
> > > Subject: RE: Airport Comments
> > > To: "Matt Clarke"
> > > Cc: brazierj@parliament.uk,
> > ladymans@parliament.uk
> > > Date: Friday, 12 February, 2010, 15:33
> > >
> > > Hi Matt
> > >
> > > We're agreed: Infratil removed the noise monitors
> that
> > were
> > > in place.
> > >
> > > I have a letter confirming that from Rowland
> Gunn.
> > >
> > > You previously said Infratil didn;'t remove the
> > monitors at
> > > an airport scheduled for expansion. You're
> indulging
> > in mere
> > > wordplay to avoid that unpleasant fact.
> > >
> > > The current system with monitors in the back
> garden
> > of
> > > Infratil employees and TDC removing monitors as
> the
> > airport
> > > expands is flimsy to say the least.
> > >
> > > Infratil have provided 3 mobile monitors to TDC?
> When were/are these
> > > operational?
> > >
> > > Your points on the airport not causing pollution
> or
> > cancer
> > > are ludicrous.
> > >
> > > The repeated 106 breaches are ignored: why did
> > Infratil
> > > insigate training flights in breach of the 106?
> > >
> > > The criteria on night flights and QC4 ie jumbo
> jets
> > and
> > > above is equally ludicrous.
> > >
> > > As you've pointed out TDC bear some of the burden
> for failing to
> > > provide accurate and tight monitoring -
> > clealry
> > > both Infratil and TDC have ben in close cahoots
> in minimising fines,
> > > announcing night fligths etc -
> > but
> > > in my opinion Infratil both under your operation
> and previously are
> > > clearly and deliberately endangering
> > the
> > > public with both air, noise and water pollution.
> > >
> > > These facts aren't in dispute merely your
> > self-serving
> > > interpretation of them.
> > >
> > > Again the public response of "disbelief and
> shouts of rubbish from
> > > the floor" seems the best summary of
> > your
> > > arguments.
> > >
> > > Your return to NZ and undoubted collapse of
> Infratil
> > and
> > > Manston heralds a better day for Kent.
> > >
> > > Sadly our incompetent politicians and civil
> servants remain.
> > >
> > > Kindest regards
> > >
> > > Tim
No comments:
Post a Comment